“Redistributive” vs. Libertarian Egalitarianism

The only equality achievable by “redistributive” egalitarianism is equality of disrespect, where the “haves” are treated as permanently exploitable slaves, and the “have-nots” as permanently useless wretches. On the other hand, the only equality achievable by libertarian egalitarianism is equality of respect, where the “haves” are free to enjoy their personal well-being, and the “have-nots” are free to pursue it. In other words, “redistributive” egalitarianism makes equality a guarantee of misery, while libertarian egalitarianism makes it a window of hope: that is, the only thing that it can be if it is to be something good.

Who Benefits From Upper Class Wealth?

Many a social democrat and left anarchist decry the existence of wealth inequality, considering it evidence that a crime somewhere, some time has been committed, and that justice must be made through violent confiscatory and re-distributive government programs. To them such is perfectly just because it is the righting of a wrong. The state is a tool that may used in this way, just as for small government libertarians it may be used in self-defense. This is a type of self-defense by the have-nots against the haves. It make me wonder, however, just how beneficial wealth is to the haves, and even to the have-notes? Let us count the ways.